I'd just like to say that the remapping of Stock Hill is a far better representation of the area than the previous (death by a thousand depressions) version. It makes a huge difference to the area when you can navigate by the contour detail. It's gone back to the mid-80's map - a case of if aint broken don't fix it.

But I did have a niggle with the map - on the 1:7500, once I'd folded all the surlplus paper away, virtually all the grid lines had disappeared and as I use the compass alot that was quite a problem for me even though I'm only walking - would have been a major factor if running.

Agree about the grid lines being missing, meant having to open up/refold my map. Could they not have been put on in blue as there was virtually no blue on the map. The ones that were there were so thin it was hard to spot them even on my large scale map!

I also thought the map was excellent. I didn't actually make any use of the lines of broken ground dots - a combination of compass, contours, and the mapped pits/depressions was generally sufficient to find the controls.

LesS wrote:But I did have a niggle with the map - on the 1:7500, once I'd folded all the surlplus paper away, virtually all the grid lines had disappeared

ISOM2017 mandates that grid lines be 300m apart regardless of scale, so 4cm at 1:7500 - although that rule was perhaps not set with 1:7500 in mind.

British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering."If only you were younger and better..."

Scott wrote:ISOM2017 mandates that grid lines be 300m apart regardless of scale, so 4cm at 1:7500 - although that rule was perhaps not set with 1:7500 in mind.

ISOM 2000 mandated, for scales other than 1:15000, that 'lines placing should be at intervals which represent a round number of meters (e.g., 50m, 100m, 250m, 500m,) and the spacing should be between 20mm and 40mm on the map. We're now stuck on 40mm for 1:7500 with no flexibilty to the detriment of an optimal result in my view. Can an ISOM be adjusted mid-term or is it set in stone for another 17 years?

If a control is faulty (#37) should the download just allow it without asking for evidence of a punch on the map? And should it be replaced during competition? Early runners had a penalty of the time to realise contactless hadn't worked, then try a proper dib, also not working and then punch the map.

A faulty control should be replaced as soon as possible after the fault is verified (the argument that it should remain the same for all competitors is not a good one).

Organisers / controllers will vary on their view concerning missing punches. Personally I would be reluctant to DSQ someone missing a pin punch following a clear unit failure - particularly an early runner who would have no chance of knowing about the faulty unit. A later competitor should always assume that the unit will be replaced and therefore not risk not going to it.

It was my first control - I got to it around 10:30am. The unit's light was on constantly and it was making a buzzing sound - my contactless SI Card did not register i.e. make the appropriate sound. I dibbed (I now know that's a pointless operation as you can't mix punch) then went off to no2. I didn't punch the map as this doesn't happen very often (it was a first for me) and I wasn't thinking. Next time I'll be better prepared. I wasn't questioned at the finish and my result stood. I feel the organisers took a fair and pragmatic approach. Yes, it was not totally fair but I lost all of 20 seconds and voiding courses would have been an overreaction.

In this case asking for proof would be officious. The only people who would gain would be those who failed to find the control gave up and moved on to the next one. The chances of this are slim and they are unlikely to be competitive - either because their not very good or they wasted a load of time looking for the control in the wrong place. No one thinks "my strategy for winning today is to miss that control out because there might be a chance the unit is not working". However, you have to replace the failed unit (or at least have a policy of doing so) so late runners who might have heard about it don't chance it and miss out the control.

Tim wrote:It was my first control - I got to it around 10:30am. The unit's light was on constantly and it was making a buzzing sound - my contactless SI Card did not register i.e. make the appropriate sound. I dibbed (I now know that's a pointless operation as you can't mix punch) then went off to no2.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'you can't "mix punch" ' ? This is the first I'd heard about that.For instance *if* a control hasn't been woken up and the 1st person who gets there is a SIAC user then they have to wake it up with their SIAC card. If they couldn't "mix punch" then surely this wouldn't be possible?

Tim wrote:I didn't punch the map as this doesn't happen very often (it was a first for me) and I wasn't thinking. Next time I'll be better prepared. I wasn't questioned at the finish and my result stood. I feel the organisers took a fair and pragmatic approach. Yes, it was not totally fair but I lost all of 20 seconds and voiding courses would have been an overreaction.

The rules state it is the competitors' responsibility to prove they've been there so you should always use the backup punch.

Tim wrote:In this case asking for proof would be officious. The only people who would gain would be those who failed to find the control gave up and moved on to the next one. The chances of this are slim and they are unlikely to be competitive - either because their not very good or they wasted a load of time looking for the control in the wrong place. No one thinks "my strategy for winning today is to miss that control out because there might be a chance the unit is not working". However, you have to replace the failed unit (or at least have a policy of doing so) so late runners who might have heard about it don't chance it and miss out the control.

It isn't officious: the download team should always (level A and B) check the manual punch for those who claim it wasn't working. It would then be up to the organising team to decide what to do if not everyone has punched their map. If the d/l team don't ask for this, then when they are railroading the senior officials into making the decision. If the organising team then decide to proceed with DSQ then you are OTOH permitted to say that that is officious.

Anyway this didn't affect me (although see a previous Controller's Conundrum in CompassSport where I was the Controller at the SHIs where a similar issue arose and I was lenient but only because everyone had already started before the issue was reported - I wouldn't have replaced the unit as I am in the "same for everyone" camp unless it is a safety issue, but I did replace it for the afternoon where the Welsh Cup used the same control), but what would have happened had this been a WRE, a World Cup or World Champs - would their officials have been so lenient. Do we want to encourage our Elites to be slack about such things (I know at Newborough some of the guilty parties who failed to use the backup punch felt suitable chastised when we didn't DSQ them and knew had it been a major event that they would have beem). We can afford to be lenient at levels D and C, but the rules do state that B and A must have a backup system in place and you are supposed to use it - for the event above getting the backup punches installed took one of the DEE guys a lot of time and effort to do (remedial work was neccessary on many stakes) so why go to that effort if no-one bothers to check.

PS were there backup punch boxes on the map - in theory the correct procedure is to punch one of those (that was noted as something I had omitted to check on at the SHIs)

JK wrote:[It isn't officious: the download team should always (level A and B) check the manual punch for those who claim it wasn't working. It would then be up to the organising team to decide what to do if not everyone has punched their map. If the d/l team don't ask for this, then when they are railroading the senior officials into making the decision. If the organising team then decide to proceed with DSQ then you are OTOH permitted to say that that is officious.

Also if the organiser does decide to reinstate competitors that have not bothered to punch then someone who did take the time (and was pushed down to second place by a small margin) would have legitimate grounds to register a protest.